Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[blunderer]

Mike Hearn's exit mic drop

I find it tough to dispute his arguments. It's getting close to fork or die time...

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.m7ipd85nk

It's easy as shit to dispute his arguments.
<~where a scurrying household pest teaches Bitcoin core dev a thing or two about Bitcoin~>

Sometimes, ad verecundiam arguments are refreshingly appropriate

[pleaseexplainagain]

Mike Hearn's exit mic drop

I find it tough to dispute his arguments. It's getting close to fork or die time...

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.m7ipd85nk

It's easy as shit to dispute his arguments.  He's basically claiming that if the blocks ever fill up, then Bitcoin has failed.  Since Bitcoin can't scale to world reserve currency without really fucking big blocks (133MB with lightning network and way higher without it), it's pretty much guaranteed to have full blocks and a fee market no matter what you do.  While I do think Bitcoin needs at least 8MB blocks to remove most of the glass ceiling on price, his logic is not sound at all about it succeeding or failing based on blocks being full or not.

That post might impress Bitcoin noobs into thinking there's some type of crisis, but blocks becoming full was always destined to happen from day 1.  The real issue is that Lightning Network does not exist TODAY, and so blocks should be raised so that Bitcoin has more room to grow until that happens, assuming Lightning Network is even the solution to all our problems in the first place.  The way I see it, a collateral bid, deterministic block production system with something like 1001 fixed block producers is the only low hanging fruit I see to solve decentralization and on-chain scaling at the moment:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1317450.0

I am intersted in the bit where he talks about reversing payments. is what he seems to be saying actually true? if the seller of the goods waits for say 4 confirms does that not still protect him. if it is going to be common place for reversals (double spend) then people will always opt for credit cards and the protection they provide and not move to using bitcoin as much?

[medialab101]

Mike Hearn's exit mic drop

I find it tough to dispute his arguments. It's getting close to fork or die time...

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.m7ipd85nk

It's easy as shit to dispute his arguments.  He's basically claiming that if the blocks ever fill up, then Bitcoin has failed.  Since Bitcoin can't scale to world reserve currency without really fucking big blocks (133MB with lightning network and way higher without it), it's pretty much guaranteed to have full blocks and a fee market no matter what you do.  While I do think Bitcoin needs at least 8MB blocks to remove most of the glass ceiling on price, his logic is not sound at all about it succeeding or failing based on blocks being full or not.

That post might impress Bitcoin noobs into thinking there's some type of crisis, but blocks becoming full was always destined to happen from day 1.  The real issue is that Lightning Network does not exist TODAY, and so blocks should be raised so that Bitcoin has more room to grow until that happens, assuming Lightning Network is even the solution to all our problems in the first place.  The way I see it, a collateral bid, deterministic block production system with something like 1001 fixed block producers is the only low hanging fruit I see to solve decentralization and on-chain scaling at the moment:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1317450.0

I am intersted in the bit where he talks about reversing payments. is what he seems to be saying actually true? if the seller of the goods waits for say 4 confirms does that not still protect him. if it is going to be common place for reversals (double spend) then people will always opt for credit cards and the protection they provide and not move to using bitcoin as much?

RBF (Replace by Fee) only applies to 0 confirmation transactions... as far as I understand it

[Meuh6879]

proof that satoshi is trasgender

-snip-

hail BTC!

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img903/4991/Zlhe7a.gif

Seriously ... ?
Satoshi is a woman ... !

[becoin]

He's basically claiming that if the blocks ever fill up, then Bitcoin has failed.

I have always suspected this guy is a clueless zombie. Quite the opposite, filled up blocks is not a failure but success! Economy is always about supply and demand. Success of a product or service you are offering is measured by how much demand is surpassing supply.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Gyrsur]

Mike Hearn's exit mic drop

I find it tough to dispute his arguments. It's getting close to fork or die time...

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.m7ipd85nk

It's easy as shit to dispute his arguments.  He's basically claiming that if the blocks ever fill up, then Bitcoin has failed.  Since Bitcoin can't scale to world reserve currency without really fucking big blocks (133MB with lightning network and way higher without it), it's pretty much guaranteed to have full blocks and a fee market no matter what you do.  While I do think Bitcoin needs at least 8MB blocks to remove most of the glass ceiling on price, his logic is not sound at all about it succeeding or failing based on blocks being full or not.

That post might impress Bitcoin noobs into thinking there's some type of crisis, but blocks becoming full was always destined to happen from day 1.  The real issue is that Lightning Network does not exist TODAY, and so blocks should be raised so that Bitcoin has more room to grow until that happens, assuming Lightning Network is even the solution to all our problems in the first place.  The way I see it, a collateral bid, deterministic block production system with something like 1001 fixed block producers is the only low hanging fruit I see to solve decentralization and on-chain scaling at the moment:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1317450.0

I am intersted in the bit where he talks about reversing payments. is what he seems to be saying actually true? if the seller of the goods waits for say 4 confirms does that not still protect him. if it is going to be common place for reversals (double spend) then people will always opt for credit cards and the protection they provide and not move to using bitcoin as much?

RBF (Replace by Fee) only applies to 0 confirmation transactions... as far as I understand it

as soon as the transaction is included into a block the transaction is not reversible except the block or the chain where the block is located in is not the main chain. after 6 blocks it seems be unusual the chain of blocks is not the the main chain except a block chain fork is in progress where two main chains exist side by side.

[billyjoeallen]

I'm not sure if you guys have read this yet but it's crazy...

Mike Hearn's exit mic drop

I find it tough to dispute his arguments. It's getting close to fork or die time...

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.m7ipd85nk

I find his arguments persuasive. Gavin made a huge mistake giving commit access to the three smallblockers in core, with no procedure or process for selecting or removing them. This, combined with the perverse incentives of the miners behind the Great Firewall of China to keep Bitcoin small is catastrophic.

What I don't understand is the position of the Bitfury mining giant, the largest pool outside of China. What's their reason for opposing larger blocks? I read their explanation, but it doesn't make sense to me and I suspect there is another reason and they are not forthcoming bout it.

What is terrifying to me as an early adopter with far too large a percentage of my net worth in Bitcoin is that the political problems are so great and resolution so difficult that to any informed party, it is becoming clear that a reboot on an entirely new blockchain is more politically feasible and economically viable than fixing Bitcoin.

The inclusion in core of fee-adjusting code that effectively allows chargebacks prior to transaction confirmation is particularly troubling, as it destroys (perhaps intentionally) the business models of retailers and payment processors alike. 

My life savings is under the control of people I don't like and don't trust, but what bothers me more is the squandered opportunity to really advance the cause of freedom throughout the world.  But we still have the technology and that genie will not and cannot be put back in the bottle, so when and if an altcoin emerges that remains true to the original promise and vision of Bitcoin, I'll go there unless by some miracle the miners jettison core first.

[billyjoeallen]

He's basically claiming that if the blocks ever fill up, then Bitcoin has failed.

I have always suspected this guy is a clueless zombie. Quite the opposite, filled up blocks is not a failure but success! Economy is always about supply and demand. Success of a product or service you are offering is measured by how much demand is surpassing supply.

We're still at less than 50% of the ATH that occurred over TWO YEARS AGO and you call that success?  The only money that's going into transaction fees is the money that's coming out of BTC market cap. You're effectively getting a negative return on the blockspace you're selling. Maybe you were sick the day they taught economics in Economics 101.

Scenario I: (25BTCblockreward+0.2BTCxactionfees)X($1100/BTC)=$27720

Scenario II: (25BTC+6BTCxactionfees)X($450/BTC)=$13950

Success my ass. You're either being stupid or dishonest.  

[nioc]

He's basically claiming that if the blocks ever fill up, then Bitcoin has failed.

I have always suspected this guy is a clueless zombie. Quite the opposite, filled up blocks is not a failure but success! Economy is always about supply and demand. Success of a product or service you are offering is measured by how much demand is surpassing supply.

I hear somebody wants to cut the 1MB block size in half.  This should make btc even more successful

[becoin]

The only money that's going into transaction fees is the money that's coming out of BTC market cap.

Woooot?

You're effectively getting a negative return on the blockspace you're selling.

Correct. This is why getting a positive return requires not increasing but decreasing blockspace!

Thanks for proving my point.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

He's basically claiming that if the blocks ever fill up, then Bitcoin has failed.

I have always suspected this guy is a clueless zombie. Quite the opposite, filled up blocks is not a failure but success! Economy is always about supply and demand. Success of a product or service you are offering is measured by how much demand is surpassing supply.

We're still at less than 50% of the ATH that occurred over TWO YEARS AGO and you call that success?  The only money that's going into transaction fees is the money that's coming out of BTC market cap. You're effectively getting a negative return on the blockspace you're selling. Maybe you were sick the day they taught economics in Economics 101.

Scenario I: (25BTCblockreward+0.2BTCxactionfees)X($1100/BTC)=$27720

Scenario II: (25BTC+6BTCxactionfees)X($450/BTC)=$13950

Success my ass. You're either being stupid or dishonest.  

There are a lot of ways to measure success besides your one tune marching band issues.  You can look at a multitude of charts on blockchain.info, and you will see a lot of growth in bitcoin transactions and computing power. That's success. 

You can also see a lot of development around bitcoin.  That's success.  You can also see a variety of innovations and lame attempts at imitating bitcoin.  That's success.

You can also see recognition of major banking and educational institutions regarding the paradigm changing nature of bitcoin... what you call that?



Wait






wait





wait...








Success!!!!!!!



Stop trying to trivialize bitcoin with your doom and goom scenarios and whining because you are not getting your way... .



even if bitcoin fails or is imitated or loses market share, it has been successful... and at the moment continues to meet the definition of success,  in spite of price and in spite of scaling controversies.

[DaRude]

I'm not sure if you guys have read this yet but it's crazy...

Mike Hearn's exit mic drop

I find it tough to dispute his arguments. It's getting close to fork or die time...

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.m7ipd85nk

"...if decentralisation is what makes Bitcoin good, and growth threatens decentralisation, then Bitcoin should not be allowed to grow.

Honestly it's hard to disagree with this statement. Growing now at a cost of centralization is very short sighted. I do believe that centralization is Bitcoins' Achilles' heel. Now how much centralization would a 2MB or an 8MB block cause that can be debated. Don't really get the end of the world catastrophe just yet. Lets get SegWit in there, and bump blocks to 2MB to be extra conservative, and have a sidechain do 0 confs, then we party!

[billyjoeallen]

If you double the blocksize, you also double the fees miners get paid without increasing the rate at all!
This might increase the cost of mining by some tiny fraction but nowhere near 100%. So let's be generous and say 2MB blocks will cost miners 110% of 1 MB Blocks.

So how about this calculation:

scenario A: 12.5BTCblockreward+3BTCxactionfees=15.5 BTCminerreward

scenario B: (12.5BTCblockreward+6BTCxactionfees)/1.1=16.818BTCminerreward

And that doesn't even factor in the very likely probability that BTC exchange rate will go up significantly due to the added utility.

So why do miners object? Could it be that they will get no reward at all because they are mining over a slow internet connection (through TOR or behind the Great Firewall) that means they cannot compete with miners with faster connections?

All the other objections are just to obscure this one. The real one. Forget the decentralization argument. Forget the "any hard fork is too radical" rationalization. These are not honest people and they are taking wealth, not making wealth.

[DaRude]

If you double the blocksize, you also double the fees miners get paid without increasing the rate at all!
This might increase the cost of mining by some tiny fraction but nowhere near 100%. So let's be generous and say 2MB blocks will cost miners 110% of 1 MB Blocks.

So how about this calculation:

scenario A: 12.5BTCblockreward+3BTCxactionfees=15.5 BTCminerreward

scenario B: (12.5BTCblockreward+6BTCxactionfees)/1.1=16.818BTCminerreward

And that doesn't even factor in the very likely probability that BTC exchange rate will go up significantly due to the added utility.

So why do miners object? Could it be that they will get no reward at all because they are mining over a slow internet connection (through TOR or behind the Great Firewall) that means they cannot compete with miners with faster connections?

All the other objections are just to obscure this one. The real one. Forget the decentralization argument. Forget the "any hard fork is too radical" rationalization. These are not honest people and they are taking wealth, not making wealth.

Maybe cause they want to show solidarity and are hoping for an organic growth of the core without intensifying the fighting and splitting in pro/against camps    imagine what would that do to a price

[abercrombie]

is crypto done??  

[podyx]

[Arcteryx]

Will Bitcoin ever find a bottom?

is crypto done???

Yep.... bitcoin's current situation is so horrible that it is preparing to CRASH.....

UP!!!!!

 

It is crashing right now, if seeing it drop a dollar per minute is not foreboding then I don't know what is  

$433 then all the way down to $421. Ohhh the humanity!  

[jbreher]

It's just like the highway. You pay more for your own car, you go faster than the bus. You pay a cab, you go faster than the bus. If you want to go "economy", you keep your money and take the bus.

Well, no. It is not just like the highway. The difference is that when traffic increases to max safe capacity, additional lanes are constructed.